Another false alarm for Rangers fans?

There must a psychological term for having no memory for disappointment. Whatever it is Rangers fans, and their media boosters, seem to have a bad case. There seems to be no learning from previous cynical manipulations from the people who currently own Rangers.

Today’s Sky Sports News story just so happened to be released 15 minutes before Companies House posted the financial results for Rangers’ parent company, Murray International Holdings Ltd (MIH). The results were for the 12 months to 30 June 2010 (almost a year ago) and reveal that MIH made a loss of £71.7m and had equity of just £7.7m. (This includes Rangers’ greatly inflated net asset figures). Sir David Murray’s media manipulation is the stuff of legend, and this looks to be another glorious chapter. Within an hour of the story of a ‘done deal” being planted on SSN and FollowFollow.com, the inevitable modifications started seeping out. “…just a few more things to iron out”.

If those things include (as I suspect) the price for MIH’s shares and responsibility for the assorted tax bills (those received and those yet to arrive), then this farcical fakeover story is no further forward.

However, it will have served its purpose in distracting a media pack that seems more ready than ever to turn on Murray from another set of disastrous financial results.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

About rangerstaxcaseI have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

33 Responses to Another false alarm for Rangers fans?

To be honest, Murray’s media manipulatory skills may be legendary, but whilst the Scottish media seem perversely disinterested in reporting the facts surrounding MIH and Rangers, he doesn’t actually need to try too hard in exercising them.

I know you say that MIH accounts make no provision for RFC tax-liabilities but also you state the balance sheet must have been re-structured to account for Lloyds convertible loan shares …… As things currently stand before any take-over/fake-over RFC/MIH/LB are on the hook for £20M+ owed to Lloyds and a potential £24M – £54M tax bill ……… if Whyte was to take-over Rangers for say approx £28M (which is probably the max RFC would fetch in the event of a post administration fire-sale) then at least LB would be assured of their £20M+ loan back without the stigma of an administration/liquidation of RFC which would then mean Murray/MIH would be looking at a best/worse case scenario of best case: £28M – £24M tax bill = £4M profit on sale of Gers or worse case: £28M – £54M = (£26M) loss on sale of Gers ….. could or would MIH take a loss of £26M against Rangers? if that avoided the stigma of a future financial crisis at Hunbrox?

Is that why they couldn’t re-value the ludicrous £120m on Ibrox stadium. Would that have placed MIH in a negative equity situation and in danger of trading insolvent, in light of trading losses for the period.

If that’s the case, and I don’t know if it is, then using the whole Whyte thing as another wee bit of smoke and mirrors would make sense.

Sky Sports have put their story back out again – updated to 1.55pm, slightly amended wording from the earlier one but still the Sky Sports understands deal agreed blah blah blah subject to Rangers board approval.

That relates to the current financial year, as opposed to the previous one which has just been reported on(as I understand it). Almost like a pre-emptive strike. We are going to report really bad figures in a few days, but things have got much better since then.

The difference being the accounts are what actually happened, as opposed to nebulous optimistic journalism.

I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, let alone his family, but the disconnect between his public personna and his actual behaviour will be a source of a lot of dissonant voices in his head. His self-belief that he is smarter than everyone else and can keep getting out of trouble will be facing some stern tests.

Can someone explain this one to me in laymans terms (a particular quality of this blog). I don’t have access to the material from where I am. A link, if such a thing is possible, for later would also be nice.

Looking more and more like a tag-team effort to shakedown the young spiv. Whyte gets RFC avec baggages , HMRC bill and short lived fan adulation…LBG gets its money back, Minty gets to keep his job with LBG Metals.

Well, of course not, but the invincible bluff bravado, which admittedly has not been on show for a while, does encourage the drawing of parallels. As the numbers keep stacking up the mighty will be falling a little further and faster than they might like …

In this cycle of historical poor performance becoming recorded fact, quickly followed by laptop spin on current performance & future outlook.

I can’t help but doubt the validity of the current (2010/2011) domestic & European licenses that rearangers had granted by the SFA.

We know Incompetence is evident, corporate governance lacking, and any disclosure falls way short of any best-practice, the latter along with pandering press fostered the thriving culture of smoke & mirrors!

However when the chairman tactically discloses that a ‘new’ tax bill “came out of left field” and no one was aware of it’s existence beyond the past few weeks, you really have to wonder if they have been upfront, and honest with the authorities and if not have they managed to cover their tracks?

So, SPL restructuring vote cancelled? No point in setting up new rules and new membership if one of the driving forces and founding members would immediately fall foul and be kicked out, eh? Should’ve added the ‘Didnae apply tae the establishment club’ clause to all those financial probity membership clauses, eh Mr Lancaster? 🙂

I cannot understand the continued breathless reporting of “closer but no deal yet” etc.

When you buy a company you buy all of its assets and all of its liabilities.

What manner of deal can possibly be considered when there is a potential tax liability that will dwarf the net assets being bought and will account for the entirety of the income stream for years to come?

Why do elements in the Scottish press seem to believe that a takeover can make liabilities disappear?

Basically it is a way for businesses with variable interest rate debt to lock in a fixed interest rate. It looks like this was a penalty fee MIH had to pay to break the Interest Rate Swap contracts. I assume that some related debt was repaid or written off (converted to pref stock).

At first I thought they just expected “IT” to come right, Nudge, Nudge, it will be sorted .

As things go on and develop they lap up the tripe being fed to them,

I have had it , TOLD YOU, it’s sorted,, from the guys I work with and who live in darkness.

I logged on, you updated, I told them, they still insisted it was a done deal.

I came home and it’s Not sorted. Not only not sorted NOT mentioned, MIH results… Never declared… All ROSY… and ONGOING.

While discussing the story I asked why they hadn’t bought shares when they could? Ok it has been mentioned that “The bunnet” came in at the right time etc. but that does not reflect on the Celtic Supporters ANYTIME would have been the right time… those shares are MINE whether they are worth a penny or a pound.
I was surprised that they don’t think they should.

Worth pointing out that yes Fergus had a share issue. However there have been two further issues, which raised £37m and demonstrated the fans commitment to the Club. Yes the circumstances were right for the first share issue, however that does not explain away the subsequent ones. Neither does it explain the abject failure of Rangers’. Had they been able to raise a decent amount from their attempt then David Murray would not have ended up controlling 92% of the club after having under-written that share issue and effectively “investing” a further c£50m. We all remember the days when they were >£70m in debt and he magicked that away. He didn’t really.

“Celtic recorded a profit in 2006/2007 for the first time in many years on the back of the club’s highest ever financial turnover. Since the end of the Fergus McCann era, which itself began with a significant share issue take up by over 20,000 Celtic fans, Celtic have raised £37m in two further share issues in 2001 and 2005. It is the investment from these share issues which have covered Celtic’s operating losses throughout the 1999-2006”

The thirst of the Scottish media to be fed good news stories about this alleged takeover is nothing short of amazing. On at least a dozen occasions since December 2010 they have run with stories about it being a ‘done deal’, or a ‘deal within 24 hours’ etc, yet have been shown to be wrong every time.

You would think that for reasons of self respect alone they might start to question the sources who are feeding them these stories and the motives behind them, or are they really so desperate for Rangers good news they believe if they write or say something often enough it will happen?